Design Meeting Internal January 28, 2021

Participants

• Jamie H.
• Murray J
• Joost v.
• Tiegan H.
• Karolina P.
• Drew R.
• Will C.
• Malaika U.
• Nicky H.
• Sahar S.
• Philip L.
• Vanessa G.

Minutes

Jamie:

• Almost there with the municipal view
• Next steps: do we bring more people in or do we go straight to design?

Review Municipal View Wireframes

• Jamie: land use characteristics… are they relevant?
  • Settlement stats are relevant for the context
• Murray: for this view we need to focus on what is impacted (e.g. building, assets, people in harm's way, and where)
  • Helping other people understand what they can do to mitigate risk, facilitate thinking about an alternative outcome
• Joost: should we have some level of interaction between maps and visualizations (e.g. slider for retrofit level)
  • Murray: perhaps using interactive visualizations as a way to filter content on the map
• Philip
  • local emergency manager
    • bar graphs of key content with the map
  • planners development over time
    • where is it the worst?
    • where can I deploy my limited resources?
  • If you can compare in relation to other muni’s you can advocate for additional funds to mitigate risk
• Retrofit discussion:
  • Risk graph already shows retrofit (dual access bar chart)
    • Need to display the retrofit/no retrofit on a map
    • Malaika: will the data downloaded allow for more advanced retrofit analysis?
      • Tiegan: some organizations will have the capacity to leverage the data
  • This is probably not the place to indicate the cost/benefit of a retrofit. We should offer this up in a dashboard environment
    • Jamie: could perhaps be addressed in the per hazard section
      • Can someone list (early next week) all of the variables and functions, by hazard, that would be required to support the questions that users are asking - for the hazard section which will be a map-based user experience
• Karolina: should we wait until the hazard section is done prior to bringing more people into the process?
  • Jamie: let's start putting that list together of people
    • well decide next week when we’ll bring more people in
• Time Slider discussion
  • Jamie: do we need this here? Can we move it to the hazards section?
  • Tiegan: perhaps we don’t need it - people are looking forward not backward
  • Philip: could be useful
    • Jamie: let's keep it for now then, we can remove it later

Chat notes:

08:38:43 From Malaika U. to Everyone:
Instead of "settlement characteristics", should it be "municipal characteristics"?

08:46:25 From Murray J. to Everyone:
an interesting example of how we could allow folks to view the hazard threat and risk information through different lenses or themes: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b390728f6d6f43c8bfcddf0b9e4dbbc4

09:43:55 From Malaika U. to Everyone:
For the hazard category, for earthquakes, could we have dashboards along the lines of: financial risk; social vulnerability; health impacts; and, structural vulnerability? Do those categories make sense for deep dives?